Gilly is not EIE and certainly not IEI

[Creepy-male]

Sigh.

Go away, gul. You're just too far off the mark to make these kinds of analyses; Nick knows me, so at least the general vein of what we discuss is relevant, because we know that, for the most part, we're seeing the same things, and that our struggle is over interpretation. You, on the other hand, hardly know me, or what I emphasize on a personal level, or why, so trying to make these "deep" analyses just comes off as phony. You're just playing around because you think you see one pattern, which in reality is subordinate to other overarching themes in my personality. Go play somewhere else.

Sure, fair enough. You have my thoughts though

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Are you now? o_O

I think so, i've been sort of looking at things, and speaking over pm and I think i'm ISTj -> INTj, leaning towards INTj atm, there's been quite a few things that would make sense for it for me tbh.

[Gilly]

Interesting indeed...

[Ezra]

Yeah I'd agree with that.

[Gilly]

With what?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Hey, were'd the guy who looked like he was playing darts go?

[Gilly]

o.O huh?

[strrrng]

A blatant cop-out.

Sigh. That response was designed to elicit this claim from you, which would confirm to me that you were in fact imposing this arbitrary sense of logic on me, as if justifying a point that you happened to be harping on was my burden.

3 pages says you do.

Well, one can care about different things, now can't they? I'll care about an argument I've invested mental energy into, but I can only care about someone else's perceptions to the degree that I see they're worth pursuing.

No, I'm just saying, you're a hypocrite. It doesn't have to be absolute; you went back on what you said: one time you said that was related to being an ILE, then you said it wasn't.

The only reason you can make this claim of hypocrisy on my part, is because I agreed with a statement in reference to a specific context, then later claimed it wasn't relevant in a different context. As I said, you conflated these two contexts to contrive an apparent contradiction, and impose a moot point.

My point is: the thing submitted as being relevant to ILE-ness is the same way that rationalizing works in EVERYONE'S brain.

By that logic, the thing you contrasted it with -- "persistent trends in my behavior and ways I manipulate peoples' emotional reactions to me" -- in regards to beta NF, could just as well be chalked up to a general tendency that occurs in everyone's brain.

Obviously. But you've directly contradicted yourself, in addition to making something that EVERYONE'S brain does into something type relevant. You can't wriggle out of that, Nick.

No one can wriggle out of an arbitrarily-imposed false dilemma. Congratulations on being its progenitor

I can accept your observations and impressions; it's when you try to pretend that they are quantitatively substantial that I get annoyed.

What socionics impressions are quantitatively substantial? And please mine are always qualitatively valuable, whether they fit in your box or not.

Fair enough. What can I say, I've moved away from most of my friends.

As have I.

No, it's just causing me to interpret your intentions differently.

Which affects this:

I don't see how that's bullshitting at all.

An unawareness to the other side of the situation.

And a final cop-out to round out the discussion.

Topped off with the concluding ribbon to your self-delivered present.

*takes a tally*

Of how many bruises you have on your ass?

Sigh.

Go away, gul. You're just too far off the mark to make these kinds of analyses; Nick knows me, so at least the general vein of what we discuss is relevant, because we know that, for the most part, we're seeing the same things, and that our struggle is over interpretation. You, on the other hand, hardly know me, or what I emphasize on a personal level, or why, so trying to make these "deep" analyses just comes off as phony. You're just playing around because you think you see one pattern, which in reality is subordinate to other overarching themes in my personality. Go play somewhere else.

Yeah. I don't know what your deal is, gul, but your over-extended pseudo-analyses can buzz off. They're facile and annoying.

[redbaron]

from what I can tell, Gilly seems 3>4>7 to me.

it would be easier irl.

aren't ILEs supposed to be good with logic?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

aren't ILEs supposed to be good with logic?

lol (consults majority joke rule book i'd mentioned previously)

Edit: Ok i'll stop potentially filling thread with "lols" or such

Or on deciding to post a picture of Spock with "illogical Captain" or something written under it.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah. I don't know what your deal is, gul, but your over-extended pseudo-analyses can buzz off. They're facile and annoying.

Aww, and here I was, feeling all confident I could chip in with something useful. Gilly's Counselor Fail aside, how do you address the rest of what I raised?

[strrrng]

Aww, and here I was, feeling all confident I could chip in with something useful. Gilly's Counselor Fail aside, how do you address the rest of what I raised?

I basically think there's a significant discrepancy between your perception of Gilly and your enneagram ideas, which renders the correlations you make from his behavior rather insignificant, despite your e-knowledge seeming decent enough. You seem too fixated on some escapist reframing he's supposedly doing; what you don't seem to grasp, is that the crux of this tendency in the E7 would preclude the endless and sometimes self-depreciating introspection that Gilly engages in. It's a really good example of an E3 using internal emotional states and identity-based cultivations to supplement and diversify the images they internalize and aspire to, actually.

[Creepy-male]

Oho! Fair enough. Like I said, I skipped past the thread to drop in with my !!BRILLIANT INSIGHT!! which made incredible amounts of sense to me

I meant wrt: what I said about Ne/Ni.

[Gilly]

Sigh. That response was designed to elicit this claim from you, which would confirm to me that you were in fact imposing this arbitrary sense of logic on me, as if justifying a point that you happened to be harping on was my burden.

NICE MCNEW-ESQUE POST HOC RATIONALIZATION

Regardless of your intent, you're copping out.

Well, one can care about different things, now can't they? I'll care about an argument I've invested mental energy into, but I can only care about someone else's perceptions to the degree that I see they're worth pursuing.

Nice reframing.

The only reason you can make this claim of hypocrisy on my part, is because I agreed with a statement in reference to a specific context, then later claimed it wasn't relevant in a different context. As I said, you conflated these two contexts to contrive an apparent contradiction, and impose a moot point.

Show me how it's not relevant to your new context! What's the difference?

By that logic, the thing you contrasted it with -- "persistent trends in my behavior and ways I manipulate peoples' emotional reactions to me" -- in regards to beta NF, could just as well be chalked up to a general tendency that occurs in everyone's brain.

...which is part of why I believe everyone uses all functions :wink: And that attitude, as well as others related more specifically to Ni, are more prevalent in my thought processes than the formerly mentioned one; hence, EIE.

No one can wriggle out of an arbitrarily-imposed false dilemma. Congratulations on being its progenitor

So go back and explain the differences. Otherwise you're just saying, "Meh, I don't feel like explaining myself...BUT I'M RIGHT, GOD DAMMIT"

What socionics impressions are quantitatively substantial? And please mine are always qualitatively valuable, whether they fit in your box or not.

I didn't say that ANY impressions are quantitatively substantial. Mine aren't, and part of the reason that I have ceased trying to write up huge logic-based Socionics rationalizations is because they become just that: justifications of impressions, logical projections of what is naturally perceived.

Which affects this:

An unawareness to the other side of the situation.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of where you're coming from. I've spent a long time getting acquainted with your perspective, learning to see things your way, but in the end I just don't think they hold up to closer scrutiny.

Topped off with the concluding ribbon to your self-delivered present.

Says the the unwitting delivery boy :wink:

Of how many bruises you have on your ass?

I consider them tick-marks of conquest

Yeah. I don't know what your deal is, gul, but your over-extended pseudo-analyses can buzz off. They're facile and annoying.

srsly...

[strrrng]

NICE MCNEW-ESQUE POST HOC RATIONALIZATION

Regardless of your intent, you're copping out.

LOLZ! I'm copping out cause you say I am. mmk.

Nice reframing.

I learned from the best

Show me how it's not relevant to your new context! What's the difference?

aha! My new context! You mean the one you foisted onto me!

...which is part of why I believe everyone uses all functions :wink: And that attitude, as well as others related more specifically to Ni, are more prevalent in my thought processes than the formerly mentioned one; hence, EIE.

oh haha! who's switching contexts now? first you say it's a rationalization mechanism everyone uses, now you're chalking it up to socionics-based thought processes! lolz

So go back and explain the differences. Otherwise you're just saying, "Meh, I don't feel like explaining myself...BUT I'M RIGHT, GOD DAMMIT"

you want me to extricate you from your own self-imposed delusions? it'll cost you something.

I didn't say that ANY impressions are quantitatively substantial. Mine aren't, and part of the reason that I have ceased trying to write up huge logic-based Socionics rationalizations is because they become just that: justifications of impressions, logical projections of what is naturally perceived.

uh, and? they can still be just as legitimate as some scientific exposition. people can establish mutual perceptual ground with these kinds of perceptions; it's why socionics is so magical!

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of where you're coming from. I've spent a long time getting acquainted with your perspective, learning to see things your way, but in the end I just don't think they hold up to closer scrutiny.

that's because you enjoy using straw-man arguments.

Says the the unwitting delivery boy :wink:

is that why she spanked me when I delivered the package?

I consider them tick-marks of Nick's conquest

fixed.

srsly...

[Gilly]

LOLZ! I'm copping out cause you say I am. mmk.

It's just obvious!

I learned from the best

aha! My new context! You mean the one you foisted onto me!

Forced or not, you still made assertions that should be backed up.

oh haha! who's switching contexts now? first you say it's a rationalization mechanism everyone uses, now you're chalking it up to socionics-based thought processes! lolz

What's the difference? I DO think it's a rationalization mechanism, but it's also interpretable as being relevant to Socionics functions. It's all just different ways the brain works; Socionics is just one way of interpreting them.

you want me to extricate you from your own self-imposed delusions? it'll cost you something.

I need no extrication; I just wish you would explain yourself for the sake of clarity.

uh, and? they can still be just as legitimate as some scientific exposition. people can establish mutual perceptual ground with these kinds of perceptions; it's why socionics is so magical!

The key is, your impressions are imposed upon a different framework than mine.

is that why she spanked me when I delivered the package?

Who has marks on their ass now?

[BlackCat]

From what I've seen of Gilly he really isn't ILE. Male Fe looks a lot different from female Fe (which is where a lot of the archetypes and stereotypes come from), so that may cause some confusion. Male EIEs that I know aren't very comfortable with their typical profiles because of this. Otherwise it just looks like people are looking way into this, who the fuck honestly cares? Why does this forum seem to revolve around people accusing others of not being their type? It's totally stupid, no one honestly gives a fuck about anyone else's opinion unless it's asked. Gilly seems pretty EIE to me to be on topic.

[redbaron]

From what I've seen of Gilly he really isn't ILE. Male Fe looks a lot different from female Fe (which is where a lot of the archetypes and stereotypes come from), so that may cause some confusion. Male EIEs that I know aren't very comfortable with their typical profiles because of this. Otherwise it just looks like people are looking way into this, who the fuck honestly cares? Why does this forum seem to revolve around people accusing others of not being their type? It's totally stupid, no one honestly gives a fuck about anyone else's opinion unless it's asked. Gilly seems pretty EIE to me to be on topic.

this made me laugh for some reason. I say we go with EIE until Gilly himself makes the change.

[BlackCat]

this made me laugh for some reason. I say we go with EIE until Gilly himself makes the change.

My opinion probably doesn't matter, since I've just been lurking around here for the most part and haven't really interacted.

Eh, people can do what they want.

[redbaron]

My opinion probably doesn't matter, since I've just been lurking around here for the most part and haven't really interacted.

I know, but I liked it.

Eh, people can do what they want.

and they will. lol

[BlackCat]

Now, if only every thread on this forum were as active as this one... now that would be great. It seems like all of the good topics are back in 05-07, and nothing is ever usually really going on in most sub forums except for useless drama. They have been enlightening and have helped my understanding of socionics though, the ones from 05-07 that have actual discussion.

I say that we go on a thread necromancy fest.

[The Exception]

Now, if only every thread on this forum were as active as this one... now that would be great. It seems like all of the good topics are back in 05-07, and nothing is ever usually really going on in most sub forums except for useless drama. They have been enlightening and have helped my understanding of socionics though, the ones from 05-07 that have actual discussion.

I say that we go on a thread necromancy fest.

I've been doing just that.

[strrrng]

It's just obvious!

Ah, yes!

Forced or not, you still made assertions that should be backed up.

They were duly asserted in their respective context. Asking me to back them up in some arbitrarily-imposed context does not warrant anything on my part.

What's the difference? I DO think it's a rationalization mechanism, but it's also interpretable as being relevant to Socionics functions. It's all just different ways the brain works; Socionics is just one way of interpreting them.

The point is, you wavered from labeling it as one thing, to labeling it as another, for the sake of conveniency in your argument. That would make you a hypocrite, as you rebuked me for doing that very thing. Attempting to evade on the bullshit logic that "it's all different, socionics is just one way of explaining it" completely nullifies any premise you had to begin with, rendering any assertion you ever purported absolutely insignificant.

I need no extrication; I just wish you would explain yourself for the sake of clarity.

I have, time and time again. I cannot continue to pander to your incessant context manipulation, though.

The key is, your impressions are imposed upon a different framework than mine.

I tend to work from the bottom-up, so as to gain a solid foothold on just what patterns are relevant, and thus can collate impressions in accordance with those patterns to extract more consistent ideas of the functions. This is called Ni/Se, the diametric opposite of what you use, Ne/Si.

Who has marks on their ass now?

Who knows?

[strrrng]

From what I've seen of Gilly he really isn't ILE. Male Fe looks a lot different from female Fe (which is where a lot of the archetypes and stereotypes come from), so that may cause some confusion. Male EIEs that I know aren't very comfortable with their typical profiles because of this. Otherwise it just looks like people are looking way into this, who the fuck honestly cares? Why does this forum seem to revolve around people accusing others of not being their type? It's totally stupid, no one honestly gives a fuck about anyone else's opinion unless it's asked. Gilly seems pretty EIE to me to be on topic.

You're a fucking cunt.

[Wynch]

Now, if only every thread on this forum were as active as this one... now that would be great. It seems like all of the good topics are back in 05-07, and nothing is ever usually really going on in most sub forums except for useless drama. They have been enlightening and have helped my understanding of socionics though, the ones from 05-07 that have actual discussion.

I say that we go on a thread necromancy fest.

The crux of the issue is there are probably enough of us here who have just stopped caring. That's my problem. I'll occassionally post discussing theory and the like, discussing questions that newer members have, etc. For the most part I feel as though I have a reasonable grasp of the theory and therefore have no real need for hashing the same conversations out over and over. I have no desire to be a guru or anything, so I don't feel the need to post articles or expound on my ideas. They exist but they mostly only come out when someone asks the right question.

Oh, also, it's difficult for me to post any longer on an intellectual subject as I get harrassed on a regular basis by Ephemeros. That and most theoretical discussions are met with cyclical arguments by the same handful of members who all disagree with each other on the fundamentals of socionics. I've decided to dedicate my intellectual hobbism to a new pursuit. Haven't decided what that will be yet.

[BlackCat]

You're a fucking cunt.

Okay. Sorry for having an opinion differing from yours.

The crux of the issue is there are probably enough of us here who have just stopped caring. That's my problem. I'll occassionally post discussing theory and the like, discussing questions that newer members have, etc. For the most part I feel as though I have a reasonable grasp of the theory and therefore have no real need for hashing the same conversations out over and over. I have no desire to be a guru or anything, so I don't feel the need to post articles or expound on my ideas. They exist but they mostly only come out when someone asks the right question.

Oh, also, it's difficult for me to post any longer on an intellectual subject as I get harrassed on a regular basis by Ephemeros. That and most theoretical discussions are met with cyclical arguments by the same handful of members who all disagree with each other on the fundamentals of socionics. I've decided to dedicate my intellectual hobbism to a new pursuit. Haven't decided what that will be yet.

Ah, yeah I figured it was something like this. Oh well. The problem is, I've looked, and I haven't really seen a forum as good as this one for socionics.

[Wynch]

Ah, yeah I figured it was something like this. Oh well. The problem is, I've looked, and I haven't really seen a forum as good as this one for socionics.

I truly wish you the best of luck.

[Gilly]

The point is, you wavered from labeling it as one thing, to labeling it as another, for the sake of conveniency in your argument. That would make you a hypocrite, as you rebuked me for doing that very thing. Attempting to evade on the bullshit logic that "it's all different, socionics is just one way of explaining it" completely nullifies any premise you had to begin with, rendering any assertion you ever purported absolutely insignificant.

No, it really doesn't; not even sure where you're pulling that from.

The point is, we both know the kind of thing that I'm talking about, and while I do think it's related to NeTi in some way, it's something that EVERYONE does, and isn't as salient in my overall mindset as things related to FeNi.

I have, time and time again. I cannot continue to pander to your incessant context manipulation, though.

Who's manipulating the context? You want to answer things in your context; I'm just providing another one to show the absurdity and inconsistency of your assertions. We both know what we're talking about here; you just refuse to address the issue as a hole, while taking the easy out of claiming "OH IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT" when you even asserted, independent of my provocation, that the idea I put forth as Ne was "very general." Is it general, or contextually relevant? Or both? In which case you should provide an explanation for WHY it's only contextually relevant instead of backing out of your argument like a fucking pussy.

I tend to work from the bottom-up, so as to gain a solid foothold on just what patterns are relevant, and thus can collate impressions in accordance with those patterns to extract more consistent ideas of the functions. This is called Ni/Se, the diametric opposite of what you use, Ne/Si.

...Actually you pretty much just described how I learned Socionics. Granted, now I'm going back and deconstructing your arguments from the "top up," as referred to in YOUR context, but it's not really how I learned the thing.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Wynch]

Woot? O_o

This is a lie, I did not harass you on theoretical issues, or at least I don't remember doing that. I harassed you only when it was about your type and when you gave information about yourself. I don't remember entering theoretical debates with you except when it was about your typing, I even could not do that as you usually get only on detached general observations with no conclusions. I was aggressive only to people who draw inconsistent conclusions without base and reasoning.

Only the sentence with your name in it pertained to you. If I enter a topic to discuss anything that isn't completely irrelevant to socionics you always jump in with some comment about how my argument is void on the basis that I am not ILE. Thus I am no longer free to discuss anything without you harassing me over and over again about my type. I don't care to discuss it with you further, it was clear to me that we were getting nowhere which is why I stopped discussing it in the first place. Between your condescending, lecturing manner of discussion that grates on my nerves and the fact that there is a very obvious language barrier between us, all that talking to you does is make me want to throw my face through a brick wall. I don't see the point in subjecting myself to that on a regular basis.

[BlackCat]

BlackCat, I disagree much with what you say, but not in the way that you are wrong, but because I simply value opposite things and that IMO you generalize too much. Oh, but I believe this is normal because you're my conflictor .

First off I'd like to commend you for being so polite with your disagreement. It doesn't even seem like you're disagreeing or anything, it just seems like a discussion is being held (a miracle)! It's funny, with my conflictor, I usually don't agree with their conclusions, and they don't agree with mine in some way. We both think that the other over generalizes too much in some areas, while we think that they're too specific in other areas. Funny how that works. Most of the time with a disagreement with my conflictor I get an overdose of Ne shoved down my throat in their responses.

I'd also like to thank you for not immediately saying I'm not ESI, which happens a lot.

I care and maybe others care, too. I consider that if someone comes with a wrong typing, he/she should be opposed, I mean if someone does not care but still comes and assert a typing, why did he do that? Imo he should shut up and don't get involved. Accuracy is the ultimate goal, but again, you are my opposite and can't ask Ti valuing from you, but I make appeal to your understanding.

Yeah, I'm not really interested in matters of Ti at all, I can't say that I am.

EIEs are interested in people's opinions, so I believe you should not try to identify with Gilly. Just imho.

Ah, yeah I'd say that this is because I really can't understand the Fe mindset at all along with having PoLR Ne. I guess what they say about not being able to empathize with some people is really true.

Although my opinion is opposite, I agree with what you say, meaning I understand it perfectly:

Now this is socionics in action. This is how I REALLY learn, is by experiencing and seeing what I get out of it (that's why I was pointing out PoLR Ne and such).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[BlackCat]

The truth is that instinctively I felt the impulse to react, I also think that I had (or you gave me) a lot of opportunities to attack, this aggression coming for the fact that some ESI sayings are somehow outrageous for an ILE.

Yeah it's really not great when that happens to me. Because it's like, things that totally don't matter to me and things that are absolutely irrelevant are being brought up, and somehow they all sound correct, so I just end up getting frustrated.

Also, not to nit pick, but can you give some examples where these "ESI sayings" are outrageous, you don't have to be specific, just perhaps another context.

I seek understanding is all. ILEs are like a mystery to me, it's not that I don't know how you function, it's just things like this that come from how you function... that's what I don't really catch.

NP. I'm glad you took it as a favor. But I take it as the impersonal dictatorship of the nature: if you are ESI, I can't do anything about it, because all you said makes sense, even in this thread - especially that Fe - Fi misunderstanding .

You seem to be one of the very few ILEs that understands this sort of thing (that I'm ESI). Most others say SEI or EII.

Thanks.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[BlackCat]

Definitely. For example asking for restraint in expressing my opinion, or saying it even if not asked. If I'm telling the truth, I don't like being dismissed for secondary irrelevant (for me) reasons: not the right moment, affect others feelings, etc.

Now this is an age old disagreement.

Yes definitely ESIs deserve investigation, I feel them like bombs: ILEs are not used to be very careful with things, even more, they can't find something certain if they did not test it in diverse conditions. But with the bombs, you have only few chances for mishandling .

Bolded is one of the main reasons I'm afraid of letting ILEs get close. If you have any questions, just fire away at me. A PM might be more appropriate if you have anything to ask.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

No, it really doesn't; not even sure where you're pulling that from.

Pulling it from? The fact that you asserted the thing about persistent trends in behavior in conjunction with the contextual framework phrase, to contrast NiFe to NeTi, and then later, after arguing that the NeTi version was something that everyone did, and I pointed out that the NiFe version was something that everybody could do, by your logic, you then redacted your claim to, "yeah, they're both part of the overall socionics process, but this one is more relevant to me" -- this was after discounting my claim about NeTi as a "simple rationalizing mechanism all people do" while failing to realize that I was referring to it in a socionics context, and then decontextualizing your other example to level it out.

The point is, we both know the kind of thing that I'm talking about, and while I do think it's related to NeTi in some way, it's something that EVERYONE does, and isn't as salient in my overall mindset as things related to FeNi.

Well, what I think is intrinsically related to NeTi, is something only NeTi'ers do; that is why I said "generally" in my appraisal of your phrasing -- because it could only serve as a general qualifier, nothing more.

Who's manipulating the context? You want to answer things in your context; I'm just providing another one to show the absurdity and inconsistency of your assertions. We both know what we're talking about here; you just refuse to address the issue as a hole, while taking the easy out of claiming "OH IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT" when you even asserted, independent of my provocation, that the idea I put forth as Ne was "very general." Is it general, or contextually relevant? Or both? In which case you should provide an explanation for WHY it's only contextually relevant instead of backing out of your argument like a fucking pussy.

No. You're taking my general agreement and distorting it into another context to "prove it wrong." If you really wanted to discuss functions, why the fuck didn't you just say so? Have you forgotten that YOU chose to use those phrases as qualifiers for the functions? That means you established a socionics context to speak within; to go back on that and alter the context, is a contradiction on your part. There is ho "hole" because I am not going to conflate general psychological rationalization mechanisms with functions, as you seem to like to do, under this guise of "it's all just different ways of explaining the same thing."

...Actually you pretty much just described how I learned Socionics. Granted, now I'm going back and deconstructing your arguments from the "top up," as referred to in YOUR context, but it's not really how I learned the thing.

Ah huh.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

wow, you fags totally superseded my and Gilly's spotlight. self-righteous pieces of shit.